Genetic Engineering is Not the Answer to Hunger
Rachel Salters

Genetic Engineering is Not the Answer to Hunger
In the past ten years, the world has seen many changes and advances, but none hold as many possibilities as genetic engineering. Genetic engineering is turning up all over, and it is definitely here to stay. Just as computers and plastics changed most aspects of living, since they were invented, biological engineering has the potential to do the same in the future. This new technology has a wide range of possible benefits, from helping farmers and sick people, to improving foods and helping the environment. Genetic engineering may even one day be used to help solve world hunger.
Genetically engineered crops might seem an ideal solution. Yet both current data and past examples show problems and provoke doubts as to their necessity.There is no simple solution to end world hunger. Genetic engineering is not the answer, just as pesticides weren't the answer. Even increasing food production is not the answer. World hunger will only end when the underlying causes of poverty are addressed. Poverty stops people from obtaining their basic right to food - either because they have no means to purchase food or they have no access to the farmland and natural resources necessary to meet basic food needs (http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/edumat/IHRIP/circle/modules/module12.htm). Genetically engineering crops do not address the poverty that causes hunger – in fact it threatens to make it worse.
Do the proponents of genetically engineered food think that agribusiness companies will distribute such food free to the hungry poor who have no money? There was food in Ireland during the famine in the 1840’s, for example, but those who were starving had no access to it or money to buy it (Donnelly, Jim). Those who wish to banish hunger should address the social and economic inequalities that create poverty and not claim that a genetically engineered technology will solve all the problems.
Claims are often made for the potential of genetically modified food to feed the world. If genes could be manipulated to enable staple crops to grow in what are today marginal conditions, it might make a big difference for many countries which struggle to feed themselves. According to Wisegeek.com, “Genetically engineered food is cost effective. Because it is designed to resist pests and prosper under non-optimal conditions, it can also help people in areas where regular crops would not prosper. Large savings in production may lead to financial gain and help fight poverty.
The impact of genetic engineering on a sustainable world has its pros and cons. It will increase crop productivity which reduces the need for agricultural land. Most concerns about genetically modified foods fall into three categories: environmental hazards, human health risks, and economic concerns. Environmental hazards like unattended harm to other organisms became apparent when studies showing that pollen from b.t. corn caused high mortality rates in monarch butterfly caterpillars. Genetic engineering also reduces the use of herbicides and pesticides, thereby reducing the damage done to the environment through modern agrichemical farming technologies (McDonagh, Sean). On the other hand those opposed to genetic engineering argue there is little evidence to show that genetic engineering increases crop yield or reduces herbicide and pesticide use. Just as some populations of mosquitoes developed resistance to the now-banned pesticide DDT, many people are concerned that insects will become resistant to b.t. or other crops that have been genetically-modified to produce their own pesticides. They state that research has shown that genes for resistance to herbicides will outcross into the natural ecosystem, generating "super weeds," and that plants engineered to be pesticides will create resistant insect pests- self-defeating processes that will irreversibly damage the environment (McDonagh, Sean).
The human health risk of genetically modified foods is allergens. Many children in the US and Europe have developed life-threatening allergies to peanuts and other foods. There is a possibility that introducing a gene into a plant may create a new allergen or cause an allergic reaction in susceptible individuals. Gene transfer from genetically modified foods to cells of the body or to bacteria in the gastrointestinal tract would cause concern if the transferred genetic material adversely affects human health. Another real risk is the movement of genes from genetically modified plants into conventional crops or related species in the wild (referred to as “out crossing”), as well as the mixing of crops derived from conventional seeds with those grown using genetically modified crops, may have an indirect effect on food safety and food security. Also there are unknown effects on human health. There is a growing concern that introducing foreign genes into food plants may have an unexpected and negative impact on human health. In fact, around the world, from Europe to Asia, doctors and consumers are watching, the United States, with curiosity, to see whether genetically modified foods in our diet will turn out to be safe. Especially, they are watching our children, the first generation to be raised on these new biotech foods (Hart, K., pg. 9).
Then there are the economic concerns of genetically modified foods. Bringing a genetically modified food to market is a lengthy and costly process, and of course agri-biotech companies wish to ensure a profitable return on their investment. Many new plant genetic engineering technologies and genetically modified plants have been patented, and patent infringement is a big concern of agribusiness. Yet consumer advocates are worried that patenting these new plant varieties will raise the price of seeds so high that small farmers and third world countries will not be able to afford seeds for genetically modified crops, thus widening the gap between the wealthy and the poor. Genetically modifying food is an expensive technology that the farmers of the developing nations would not be able to afford easily. In the past, about 3,000 species of plants have been used for food at one time or another. Now, most of the world’s food comes from only 16 widely grown crops (Cunningham, pg 168). According to the International Programs Center, U.S. Census Bureau, the total population of the World, projected to 11/22/10 is 6,883,165,529. Genetically modified food is widespread. Farmers first planted genetically modified corn seed in 1996 (Hart, K. pg. 6). Advocates argue that feeding a world population of nine billion by mid-century means finding ways to increase food supply. This year nearly 9 million children younger than 5 will die needlessly, more than half from hunger-related causes (UNICEF). Few of these deaths are related to outright starvation, but rather to common illnesses (like diarrhea, malaria and measles) that move in on vulnerable children whose bodies have been weakened by hunger. Freedom from hunger concentrates its services on the world's poorest nations where an overwhelming 32% are moderately to severely stunted- seriously below normal height for one's age.
In the developing world, more than 1.4 billion people currently live below the international poverty line, earning less than $1.25 per day. Among this group of poor people, many have problems obtaining adequate, nutritious food for themselves and their families. As a result, 1.02 billion people in the developing world are undernourished (UNICEF). They consume less than the minimum amount of calories essential for sound health and growth. Undernourishment negatively affects people’s health, productivity, sense of hope and overall well-being. A lack of food can stunt growth, slow thinking, sap energy, hinder fetal development and contribute to mental retardation.
Economically, the effort of constantly securing food consumes valuable time and energy, allowing poor people less time for work and earning income. Pregnant women, new mothers who breastfeed infants and children are among the most at risk of undernourishment, they have fewer resources to protect themselves and their families and are already living on the margin of survival. They are vulnerable and exploited in cultures beset by poverty (Dole, McGovern, Mosser) Genetically modified foods will not alleviate the five things that do contribute to most of the world's hunger. When people are suffering from poverty they do not have the resources, whether land, tools or money- needed to grow or buy food on a consistent basis. Armed conflict and wars disrupts agricultural production, and governments often spend more on arms than on social programs. Environmental overload and over-consumption by wealthy nations and rapid population growth in poor nations strain natural resources and make it harder for poor people to feed themselves. Discrimination, lack of access to education, credit and employment -- a recipe for hunger -- is often the result of racial, gender or ethnic discrimination. Lack of clout, the final analysis of chronic hunger is caused by powerlessness. People who don't have power to protect their own interests are hungry. The burden of this condition falls most acutely on children, women and elderly people.
There is no single cause of hunger, there is no single solution. To alleviate world hunger, efforts must address root causes, be sustainable (that is, programs must pay for themselves). We must reduce poverty by helping poor people find and hold jobs or training them for jobs where they can make money. Provide information to people about the necessity of a well-balanced diet. Make farming more productive so that there will be more food for the world’s growing population. Yes genetically altered salmon grow fatter and faster than their unaltered brethren, so fish farmers will be able to produce more salmon at lower cost. I am not convinced fatter fish or more bug-resistant crops will solve world hunger. I worry whether the fish will cause allergies or alter other fish populations if it escapes.
We've learned to accept a lot of food that comes to us in, shall we say, an "altered state," seedless watermelon, farm animals bred for extra meat, cows overflowing with milk, and the multi-billion-dollar business of genetically modified crops, like soybeans and wheat. Many people feel that genetic engineering is the inevitable wave of the future and that we cannot afford to ignore a technology that has such enormous potential benefits. However, we must proceed with caution to avoid causing unintended harm to human health and the environment as a result of our enthusiasm for this powerful technology. Using this technology, governments could grow crops at faster rates and feed the masses, ending hunger all together.
This idea however, faces certain doubt, for it also has its many disadvantages: harm to nature, reduced effectiveness of pesticides, gene transfer to non-target species, health effects on human health, and economic concerns. Consider the environmental watchdogs, Greenpeace, who show their disapproval towards genetic engineering, disagreeing with the unnatural manipulation of genes, all while blaming commercial interests as one of the culprits (http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/agriculture/problem/genetic-engineering/). Clearly, implementing this technology reaps fortunes to the engineering sector, the farming sector (those who foster genetically modified foods), and the corporate sector alike, yet the many risks and hazards associated, however, raise many doubts about its effectiveness in reducing world hunger. In fact, reports have shown that some crops have been lucratively designed to thrive only for a certain season of time; the seeds are oftentimes engineered to purposely render no cultivation whatsoever, thus forcing consumers to repurchase crops altogether. By the same token, many governments have already implemented hefty regulations, mandatory testing, or even outlawed genetically modified crops entirely.
Contrarily, some hold the belief that developing countries face a problem in that genetically modified crops are being market led and thus focusing on the wealthy countries of the world- ignoring the third world. The Royal Society in England indicate that genetically modified crops are not essentially the solution to world hunger, but do however render a “significant contribution” towards that cause (http://www.organicconsumers.org/organic/health-benefits.cfm). While the development of genetically modified crops does cultivate differing positions and biases, it’s hard to fully understand the future direction genetic modification is taking and moreover far-fetched to imagine its headed towards ending world hunger once in for all.
Hunger is a political problem, and people need to demand change from their elected officials. Overcoming the unequal distribution of food and conflict over dwindling resources are the real challenges. Globally there needs to be an increase in the standard of living and working productivity. Nonprofit organizations who work to end hunger may provide short-term emergency food in cases of drought, civil unrest, or other emergency, or they may focus on development projects that break the cycle of poverty and help ensure long-term food supplies. Genetically modified crops are not essentially the solution to world hunger, but do however render a significant contribution towards that cause.
Since hunger results from human choices, not inexorable natural forces, the goal of ending hunger is obtainable. It is no more utopian than the goal of abolishing slavery was, not all that long ago. While slowing population growth in itself cannot end hunger, the very changes necessary to end hunger-the revitalization of economic life, especially the empowerment of women-are key to reducing birth rates so that the human population can come into balance with the rest of the natural world.
It is not necessary to destroy our environment to end hunger. On the contrary, it requires protecting it by using agricultural methods that are both ecologically sustainable and with the reach of the poor. Greater fairness does not undercut the production of needed food. The only path to increased production that can end hunger is to devise food systems in which those who do the work have a greater say and reap a greater reward. Genetically modified food will not end world hunger. Perhaps not fearing the advance of the poor in the third world and understanding that their increased well-being can advance our own.

Reference

Bocco, D., What are the Pros and Cons of Genetically Engineered Food? http://www.wisegeek.com/what-are-the-pros-and-cons-of-genetically-engineered-food.htm. Retrieved November 7, 2010

McDonagh, Sean. The Pros and Cons of GE Food. http://www.columban.com/stateofplanet4.htm

Donnelly, Jim. -10-15 2010 The Irish Famine, http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/victorians/famine_01.shtml Retrieved November 8, 2010

The Right to Adequate Food, http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/edumat/IHRIP/circle/modules/module12.htm
World Population Clock: U.S. Census Bureau, International Data Base. http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/popclockworld.html. Retrieved 11/22/2010
Cunningham, W.P. and Cunningham, M.A. (2008). Principles of Environmental Science: Inquiry and Applications (Custom 4th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Easton, Thomas (2008). Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Environmental Issues (13th ed.) New York: McGraw-Hill.
Tandem Constructs: Preventing the Rise of Superweeds (Trends in Biotechnology, Vol 17, No 9, pp 361-366, Sep 1999)
Containment of Herbicide Resistance Through Genetic Engineering of the Chloroplast Genome (Nature Biotechnology, Vol 16, No 4, pp 345-348, Apr 1998)
UNICEF, WHO, The World Bank, the United Nations Population Division, Levels and Trends in Child Mortality, Report 2010. http://www.childinfo.org/mortality.html Retrieved November 18, 2010
Dole, Bob, McGowen, George, Mosser, Donald, (2005), Ending Hunger Now: A Challenge to Persons of Faith. Minnesota: Augsburg Fortress.
Say No to Genetic Engineering http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/agriculture/problem/genetic-engineering/ Retrieved November 12, 2010

UK Soil Association Release Fact Sheet on Key Health Benefits of Organic Foods. http://www.organicconsumers.org/organic/health-benefits.cfm. Retrieved November 14, 2010

Hart, Kathleen (2002), Eating In The Dark: America’s Experiment with Genetically Engineered Food. Pantheon Books: New York.